British Video Recordings Act 1984 Invalid

chrb writes "BBC News is reporting that the British Video Recordings Act 1984 is invalid due to a 25 year old legal blunder. The Thatcher government of the day failed to officially "notify" the European Commission about the law, and hence it no longer stands as a legal Act. There will now be a period of around three months before the Act can be passed again, during which time it will be entirely legal to sell any video content without age-rated certifications."

Comments

Of course, Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

They would have passed this shit as a _fake_ law in _1984_

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[dintech]

Does this mean that Grotesque has just been given the best publicity ever and no way to prevent it from being sold?

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post! Slashdot really needs a "+1 refers to '1984' somehow" mod option.

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[Khyber]

For three months, at least, that's exactly what it means.

A few of my UK pals that I chat with on Camfrog mentioned that they have already ordered several copies of the movie.

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[xaxa]

Friends of mine never had problems importing "banned" films from other countries -- typically using eBay.

("Banned" is really "unrated", but to show a movie in a public cinema or sell it requires it to be given a rating by the BBFC. It's still OK to posses, or view privately, the film).

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[Viperlin]

it should prevent itself from being sold, it lacks a detailed storyline and its mostly bad rape porn for the first section, followed by the usual gore, its nothing special, the "no rating" is probably the only marketing that would ever work for this film (so yes torrents have been out for a while if you really want to see it)

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[mdwh2]

Indeed. The sad thing is that this angle is completely being ignored by the press, who are instead running with wild scaremongering of "OMG, now people will be able to sell porn to young children!!!111"

Whilst the VRA covers age ratings, it also makes it illegal to sell an unclassified work to anyone, period. And since the BBFC can refuse classification for films or games, it's this law that allows censorship for adults. It's also routine that cuts are required - the film gets approved, but in the UK only if material deemed unsuitable even for adults is removed. So for now, selling uncut films will be legal.

There are other aspects too: for example, various regulations surrounding R18 material (material which is given a classification, but is considered taboo enough that there are loads of regulations covering where and how it can be sold, even to adults - a curious oddity is that it's not even legal to order R18 material online from a UK supplier, desite the fact that you could happily order it from abroad).

The VRA was passed as a result of a moral panic in the 1980s over snuff films and video nasties. Those video nasties have now, since 2000, been legalised anyway as a result of a more relaxed BBFC. Will they take the opportunity to finally relax the law, and perhaps bring in something solely related at age limits?

Fuck no. In fact, we're hearing talk of "emergency legislation" (WTF? That's the sort of thing you'd associate with terrorism or war, not "But an under-18 might be able to watch Robocop"). And with the knee-jerk "OMG think of the children" angle being reported by the entire press - not just the tabloids, but also the broadsheets (the Guardian even have a nonsense article claiming that piracy is now legal! We wish...) and the BBC - you can bet that there'll be no debate. Indeed, in today's climate where the UK Government recently criminalised possession of some kinds of adult porn it doesn't like, my fear is that if they do decide to revisit the law, we'll actually end up with something even worse.

On top of that, we have the Government claiming that convictions under this non-existent law will still stand(!)

My first reponse to hearing this news was a big "ha ha", but the response from the press and seemingly anyone in power who matters has left me rather depressed about attitudes towards adult censorship in this country.

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[jamstar7]

And here I was hoping that it meant that torrenting British tv shows was totally legal until they redid the law.

Guess that ain't gonna happen, eh?

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[Hognoxious]

All we need is an xkcd cartoon about 1984 and there'll be no need to post anything original ever again.

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[mdwh2]

Just an additional note on some good coverage on this - there's a good article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/26/video-recordings-act

OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are we going to do with it?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[commodore64_love]

Teen pregnancy rates will probably drop, because now instead of living in Victorian-style ignorance ("Orgasm? What an orgasm?"), the teens will finally learn what "sex" is thanks to watching these no-longer restricted videos, and what not to do if you don't want to become a mommy or daddy.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

For once someone thought of the children?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[cayenne8]

So, am I understanding it correctly, that a sovereign nation over there in Europe, cannot pass their own law without it also being reported (and I assume approved) by an outside entity??

If so...doesn't that make you a non-sovereign nation then?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Alzheimers]

Those "no-longer restricted videos" have as much to do with teaching sex as a monster truck rally has to do with teaching you how to drive.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[MBGMorden]

I'm all behind the general thing you're pushing, but really, how many R rated or adulty only films (sorry, I don't know the British equivalents) go into ANYTHING relating to what to do if you don't want to become a mommy or a daddy? Heck most porns are probably bad sources on that as these days they have the whole network setup so that the actors are only supposed to have intercourse with other screened actors, which allows them to film without using condoms most of the time.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for sex education, I just don't think the education videos were really being blocked here.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Alzheimers]

Exploit it in the most outrageous and gratuitous ways possible, thereby giving ammunition to the very forces who want to take it away?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Hurricane78]

The same thing that chickens do who sat in a tiny cage for their whole lives:
You will just sit there, not knowing what to do. Until you're put back into the cage to work your asses off ("normal"), or killed to be feasted upon by large ugly beasts ("economy crisis"). :P

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole idea of the European *Union* is that part of the sovereignty is sacrificed for something beneficial, like open borders (good for the economy), and reducing the likelyhood of war between European countries (you can think of the EU as a response to two world wars).

Not everybody is happy about that, of course, partly because the EU is not as democratic as it should be. In some countries the EU constitution was voted away in a referendum because of that.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Tanktalus]

+1, Car Analogy.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Kokuyo]

I applaud your use of monster trucks as an allegory to human genitalia ;).

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

Actually quite a bit - I have several videos that are not only fun to watch, but also discuss how to avoid getting AIDS (use a condom and/or cover the pussy with plastic before licking a stranger's clit). As for myself - I learned a lot from videos downloaded to my Amiga when I was just a young lad which my uptight parents refused to talk about.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Kokuyo]

Psst, don't tell the Germans and the French! They still think they have a say in what happens in their countries.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[jayme0227]

QUICK! Find some porn and sell it to a 7 year old! We've only got 3 months here, guys!

Re:OMG, freedom.

[imamac]

A european country in the EU will eventually end up just as "sovereign" as a state in the US.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[arethuza]

Or, more to the point, perhaps as sovereign as the constituent parts of the UK itself. Note the recent fuss about the Scottish policy on releasing prisoners on compassionate grounds.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[JasterBobaMereel]

They passed a law saying they had to notify the EU in order for a certain new laws to be valid, then failed to do so with another law ...

So in the US if one law conflicts with another both are valid .... strange system you have ?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Xest]

Not really, because the nation in question - Britain, has signed up to have that as part of the deal.

If Britain hadn't signed up to this and Europe was still enforcing this you'd have a point, but as it's Britain's choice to only allow laws to be legitimate if reported to Europe then it's still a sovereign nation.

It can get out of this agreement any time it wants but there's not really any reason to as it's not a big deal. Besides, nowadays Europe does a better job of running Britain than the current Labour government does. Certainly the European court of human rights and the EU itself have done more to protect my human rights and civil liberties as a citizen than my own government which has repeatedly tried to violate them.

Even if Europe was in control of Britain then and did actively choose not to ratify laws like this it could only be a good thing until unelected Brown and his unelected cronies like Mandelson get kicked out next year.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are we going to do with it?

Mine lots of data based on purchasing records during those 90 days.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[interkin3tic]

Those "no-longer restricted videos" have as much to do with teaching sex as a monster truck rally has to do with teaching you how to drive.

Exactly: it will teach you how to do it THE AWESOME WAY.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

All members of the EU transfer a part of their sovereignty to the European Union. The EU is as "outside" to any EU member state, as the USA is "outside" to California.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[zzsmirkzz]

As will the entirety of the USA when the North American Union is fully realized. The federal governments trampling on states' rights (or powers) makes a lot of sense in this light as the state's sovereignty will be treated as a novelty of the past.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just think he has delusions of grandeur.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[u38cg]

Certain types of law operate within a European framework, to make cross-border life easier. This is no different from the US being obliged to pass law to follow international treaty obligations (and by the way, what happens when a state passes laws the federal government doesn't like?).

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a big truck... it's more of a series of tubes.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[mweather]

Well, both do teach you to wear a helmet.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Clandestine_Blaze]

The same thing that we do every time - give it all right back in exchange for security theatrics and "thinking of the children".

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

If I was a French citizen and I was sitting in jail due to a nullified-UK law, I'd be pissed.

I'd immediately file a case with the Supreme Reichstag (or whatever the EU equivalent of the Supreme Court might be). EU citizens should not be punished by laws that are voided.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[cayenne8]

"A european country in the EU will eventually end up just as "sovereign" as a state in the US."

Well, at least these days, there is some grassroots movement these days, to try to stop the loss of power/independence in the states...and push back a bit on the federal govt.

I only hope it isn't too little too late.

With the way the current bits of legislation are going, with the feds taking over everything, well, there might be a backlash against it all....maybe the current administration IS what we need to get people to rally for what the US was founded upon.

Maybe.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

In the US laws are hierarchical. The lesser law would be invalid if it contradicted the higher law. Plus anyone convicted under the lesser law would be freed, as if the lesser law never existed.

The UK ought to follow the same principles, but apparently not. It appears that a French or German person can be punished by a UK law that hasn't been written yet by the Parliament (ex post facto).

Oh my.

What a mess.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

>>> (what happens when a state passes laws the federal government doesn't like?)

Nothing. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Well ideally nothing happens, but usually there's a power struggle. This is why there's such a fuss over medical marijuana, because California and other states have legalized it, but the U.S. government doesn't like that, but the U.S. has no authority in this manner, and slowly but surely federal judges are upholding the State's Right to legalize marijuana for prescription.

This also works in the opposite direction, like when the U.S. passed the Fugitive Slave Act. The states in the north refused to comply, declaring the law unconstitutional (nullification of federal law), and gave sanctuary to the escaped black persons.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

HA! In seriousness there are some pornos that are somewhat meant to be educational, though still clearly primarily so that guys can get off. One was by some older white woman and another with some twenty something Asian woman. The first got my wife into anal and the second showed her many new tricks related to oral. In my case I read two books related to my mouth/hands and her.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

The U.S. is outside the States. It has its own administrative zone called D.C. which the states cannot touch. It is from that zone which the United States governs the other 50 governments, but only with a certain limited list of powers. Powers not granted to the U.S. are reserved to the local State governments.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Jerry Smith]

Those "no-longer restricted videos" have as much to do with teaching sex as a monster truck rally has to do with teaching you how to drive.

Brilliant sir, truly grand! I bow in awe!!

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, technically, Minnesota or Ohio also cannot do whatever they like with their law (things that are regulated only on *Union* aka Federal level)

Re:OMG, freedom.

[ari_j]

Actually, in the US you'd see three points of view on that (assuming both laws are federal statutes):

1. The new law is invalid because the prior law says so
2. The new law supersedes any prior, conflicting law to the extent of the conflict
3. The Constitution and nothing else determines the process by which something becomes law, and therefore the old law is unconstitutional and unenforceable to the extent that it puts additional requirements on the government in passing laws (similar to the argument that Congress can't pass a law that permits one house or the other of it to enact new laws without the other voting on them)

Each of these points of view has merit.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[cheftw]

If I were you, the "Supreme Reichstag" would not be the first place I would go to file a case.

Unless, of course, you usually file your legal cases in the House of Representatives sixty years ago.

If that's what you do then you're fine.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Sensiblemonkey]

Those "no-longer restricted videos" have as much to do with teaching sex as a monster truck rally has to do with teaching you how to drive.

Exactly: it will teach you how to do it THE AWESOME WAY.

But only on Sunday, SUNDAY, SSUUUNNNNNNNDAAAAY~!!!!!

Re:OMG, freedom.

[bbtom]

British movie/game ratings are pretty simple.

There is:

U - Universal - suitable for all

PG - Parental Guidance

12/12A - for videos, nobody under age 12 is allowed to purchase it. for movies shown in a cinema, under twelves can watch it if they are accompanied by an adult.

15 - suitable for 15+

18 - suitable for 18+

R18 - Restricted 18 - basically porn. Can only be shown in specially licensed venues and sold only in licensed sex shops.

'E' is on some videos. It's not actually a rating, but it's just a symbol put on by video producers to specify that the film is exempt from rating. Things like videos of sports matches, musical performances, educational videos don't get rated. Most imported videos

The BBFC also now produce some text that accompanies the rating symbol which broadly gives the reason why the film is rated that way. For instance, it might say "Contains frequent strong bloody violence and very strong language" next to an 18 certificate.

They introduced R18 a few years ago when they realised that hardcore porn was mostly being circulated through the black market and by people distributing copied tapes. Of course, now, we have the new rules on "violent and extreme" pornography which actually makes it a crime to possess pornography that depicts violent scenarios - rape fantasies, that kind of stuff. With one hand, the government make porn a bit more legal, and with the other hand, they've created a new black market that the Internet supplies.

The BBFC is generally, imo, pretty fair - I mean, as fair as a bunch of censoring, free-speech-restricting thugs can be. Perhaps it's just bias living here, but BBFC seem to get it right a lot more often than the MPAA ratings do, and they are a hell of a lot less squeamish about depiction of sex and nudity - they make a distinction for 'natural nudity' where it's non-sexual, so we don't have idiotic philistines sticking big blocky pixels over Dürer woodcuts, Titian paintings and Michaelangelo's David (etc.) because they've got HUR HUR HUR DONGS LOL. There's an interesting set of articles by people who have worked at BBFC, describing exactly what it's like censoring movies and video games for a living.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[marnues]

That "some grassroots" is thankfully very small and very ignorant of modern governance. Rather than blindly attempting to squash anything Washington is trying to do, how about you join in the debate. Maybe we'd grow an able populace that understands why a strong, central government is the best place for many pieces of legislation and pretty much all forms of regulation. Don't be a reactionary.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU is a confederation, while the U.S. is a federation. The U.S. civil war was fought over this distinction. EU countries, as part of a confederation, have more sovereignty than a state in a federation.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Under_score 1]

Try our damnedest to pirate the shit anyway!

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if Europe was in control of Britain then and did actively choose not to ratify laws like this it could only be a good thing until unelected Brown and his unelected cronies like Mandelson get kicked out next year.

This winds me up, you understand how our parliamentary system works right? We do not elect prime ministers, Brown is every bit a legitimate as Blair.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

The saddest thing is that the most vocal people against the EU are the most overtly racist parties in each country.

I know that in America, people are not used to true political parties that are obviously racist. Sure, occasionally the KKK puts together a show and runs someone, but nobody takes them seriously. Most countries in Europe, however, have parties in which the core is racism/nationalism, barely even disguised. People who want to round up all foreigners and have them deported. Keep England English (or at least people who look English). Keep Italy Italian (or at least people who look Italian). These parties generally advertise and manage to win a few seats in each election.

Those parties are, obviously, out in full force against the EU.

There are two big negatives with that.

Firstly, it makes people who are against increasing EU power look crazy. Most of the major respectable parties are kissing EU ass. So only racists are against the EU, right?

Second, it drives reasonable people who are against increasing EU power to these extremist parties. For example, when I took a few online political tests before the last election to see which local parties I fall most in line with, I was somehow closest to two most fascist, nationalist, and racist parties, because I answered negatively to almost any question about increasing EU power. Apparently, that overwhelmed the fact that I'm pro-gay-marriage, pro-civil-liberties, etc.

For the record, I'm totally fine with EU requiring a certain level of freedom amongst its member countries. I'm absolutely against the EU requiring any freedoms/protections banned in countries (see the EU suing Sweden for protecting its citizens' privacy: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/28/0149243 ) which it has been moving closer and closer to.

I really do think that unless something changes that within 50 years the EU will be congruent to the USA, despite having such diverse culture and language.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

... as a citizen ...

Dear My Subject,
you are not a citizen.

Sincerely Yours Queen

Re:OMG, freedom.

[cayenne8]

"That "some grassroots" is thankfully very small and very ignorant of modern governance. Rather than blindly attempting to squash anything Washington is trying to do, how about you join in the debate. Maybe we'd grow an able populace that understands why a strong, central government is the best place for many pieces of legislation and pretty much all forms of regulation. Don't be a reactionary."

I am far from reactionary, I've held and argued my views for quite some time, as I learned more of how my country, the USA, was set up, I found I agree more and more with the founding fathers and the way the govt is supposed to work. It worked VERY well for nearly 200 years, but, people like you want to fundamentally change it. I respect your views, I'm happy to debate it, but, I don't agree with them, and I'll be happy to fight to keep not only keep the US from moving towards a more centralized govt. but, to go back more to our roots which made the US great to begin with.

I believe the US federal govt. as originally set up to be weak with limited enumerated powers, it the best way to go, my state govt, city govt. is closer to me, has the same interests and me, and is more responsive to mine and my community's needs.

I believe I am a citizen of my state first, and a citizen of the United States second.

What is best for someone in NYC, is often NOT the best thing for someone in New Orleans, Anchorage or Phoenix. Each region has different needs, and all our views and needs are EQUAL within the union.

Care to specifically elaborate what you think makes an argument for changing more and more to a strong centralized govt. from what the US was originally set up to be? How would a strong central govt. that interferes more with the individual's life have made us a greater country than they way we made our path until recent years?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

I don't disagree in principle, but if you want to extend Washington's power then you should do it via the proper procedure of amending the constitution to grant said power to Congress. Else the national law (like banning marijuana) is an unconstitutional grab for power. In fact many States are legalizing medicinal marijuana, and although Washington is having a fit about it and threatening the state legislatures, the federal judges are upholding the States' power to do so.

We are a Federation with many varied climates and beliefs, and one size does not fit all. In many cases the "best place" for legislation is at the local State level, within a few miles of where the citizens live.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't waste your breath. Slashdot is infested with Paultards who deeply wish the United States was as "free" as Somalia.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

[correction - after doing some research)

If I was a French citizen and I was sitting in jail due to a nullified-UK law, I'd file a lawsuit with the EU Court of First Instance to get myself freed. EU citizens should not be punished by (filthy, foreign) British laws that have been voided by EU Treaty. Vive la France! Vive la revolution!

(waves the Tricolore)

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that would be stupid.

We flip a coin.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Xest]

I understand exactly how it works.

That doesn't mean I agree with it though, you're assuming that I'm misunderstanding the system and complaining about that - I'm not, I'm complaining that I don't like the way the system works, I do not like the way one leader can arbitrarily be replaced only a short way through the term with one no one wants. I understand this is part of our system but I believe it is a flaw in our system and I believe it is undemocratic. Yes, he is legitimate in the eyes of the system, but he is not, in my opinion, legitimate in the eyes of the people of whom the vast majority do not want him in power at all as can be seen by the massive losses Labour has made in local elections since Brown's rise to power.

The fact is a change of leader creates a complete change of dynamic to a party. Under Blair Labour was holding it's own vs. Cameron, but under Brown it's a complete dead loss, Labour now has no chance at all of winning the next election, and in fact, they've even dropped below the Lib Dems in the polls a few times in the last year. If a party can change so drastically with a leadership change, then a leadership change should result in an election. I know this isn't how the system does work but it's how the system should work. If it did we wouldn't be in the horrific mess our country is in in terms of civil liberties right now.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Civil War was mostly about federal power vs state power. Federal won. So really, I don't know what all this noise is about the feds "taking everything over" - maybe some kind of new fangled know nothing talking points, to create fear of some kind of bogeymen, to make sure some group (in healthcare, that would be insurance companies) can continue to milk the current system. We can't have the federal government grabbing power to give us cheaper healthcare!! That would be terrible!! So many people seem to willingly sign up to become the tool used to work for someone else's profit. It's weird.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[marnues]

It is not me that changed it. The founding fathers figured out how untenable their government was and changed directions very rapidly. Gradually more and more power has been vested in Washington as we find out that so many things fail without strong national support through government. There has been a noticeable backlash against these tried-and-true measures in recent years. I truly hope we don't need more civil war and boom/bust cycles to prove that strong national government is necessary to any strong nation. Wishful thinking (as the founding fathers discovered) does little to change that.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the modern globalised economy, sovereignty equates to the right to commit economic suicide. Unless you're actually planning on committing economic suicide, the notion of sovereignty is largely academic.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[DesScorp]

"Don't be a reactionary."

Don't be a slave.

In These United States, the Founders set up a Federal division for a good reason... power corrupts, so split it up. And the further the government is from citizens, the less attuned they'll be to those citizens. This is why State and Local governments have been more powerful than their equivalents in Europe. If anything, Federalism and the limits on national government are more important than ever. With over 300 million people, there's simply no way the feds can ever be attuned to local and state concerns, and they'll simply run roughshod over the citizenry, as they've demonstrated increasingly over the decades.

The notion of an all-powerful national government isn't just bad practice. It is well and truly anti-American, and would be opposed vociferously be even the staunchest of the advocates of central government among our founders, save perhaps for Alexander Hamilton. And I'm pretty sure that if someone ever told Washington or Jefferson that some extra-national entity could void US laws, they'd start loading their muskets. Even Lincoln, the father of modern concentrated Presidential power would object to that.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[TheoMurpse]

It worked VERY well for nearly 200 years

You do realize that less than 80 years after the Constitution was drafted there was a war that killed millions of Americans and nearly rent the nation in twain all because of how the Constitution was drafted, right?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[papershark]

Well yes and no. For some matters the Law Lords are the highest court in the land (This would be similar to the American Supreme Court) (The Law lords do not make law, but interoperate it) on others the European union is the highest, and should you wish to take an issue further (not higher) you could.
It is worth noting that on such matters where Europe makes the law, it is only by act of UK parliament, and can be removed by that parliament... and future parliament are not bound by and may remove themselves should they wish.
Just because a parliament gives the power to make law to another body, it is not necessarily a loss of sovereignty. For example, many parliament will let an unelected body of experts draught law on matters such as technical safety and flight.

anyone can make my law... and i see no issue of sovereign power. but when they control the money in my pocket (The Euro) then the throne of power really has moved to a different place.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a big truck... it's more of a series of tubes.

And the light going down the glass tubes-- that's the revolution of the croud's wave directing the maelstrom of nerds jousting their 3.5" floppydrives at the gape of the storm (goatse style).

And the crowd goes wild...

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

Thousands not millions.

Don't exaggerate. You also make it sound like, after the civil war, the Constitution was no longer in force. Well. It is. The United States is still limited in its power, and the Supreme Law still still reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The primary powers still lie with the 50 Governments, even if Congress does not seem to realize that. For example they want to fine me, personally, $1500 a year because I don't have health insurance (like Massachusetts does with its citizens). Now I've read the U.S. law several times, and I can not lay my hand on any part of the document which gives Congress the right to fine the People, because one of them voluntarily-choose not to buy a product.

We are still better-off having a weak central government, since one size solutions do NOT fit all. It is better to put the power closer to home, just a few miles from the citizens, at the state level. 50 solutions for 50 very different climates/regions. It is also better to have "checks and balances" not just between the three branches of U.S. government, but also between the States and the U.S., so neither grows too powerful.

As power grows, liberty wanes.
Better to keep power in check.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

"Heil mein Führer!"
(ripped from Mr Strangelove, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)

Adenoid Hynkel - How wonderful! Tomania, a nation of blue-eyed blondes.
Marshal Herring- Why not a blonde Europe, Asia, America?
Adenoid Hynkel - A blonde world...
Marshal Herring- And a brunette dictator.
Adenoid Hynkel - Dictator of the world!
Herr Garbitsch - Mein Fooie! I have news!
Adenoid Hynkel - Cheese-und-krakers. What???
Herr Garbitsch - We've just discovered the most wonderful, the most marvelous poisonous gas. It will kill everybody.
Adenoid Hynkel - Wunderbar. Declare war on that Italian Napaloni.
Marshal Herring- Napaloni?
Adenoid Hynkel - Yes, Napaloni!
Marshal Herring- Very well. Would you sign this?
Adenoid Hynkel - Yes, I'll... what is it?
Marshal Herring- The declaration of war.
Adenoid Hynkel - Then I'll sign it. A pen! Und stratz mit ze uldensackt, il der, der flutens und strippensackt! A pen! I'll sign it. Napaloni, der grosse peanut, der cheesy ravioli. There!

(ripped from Charlie Chaplin's Great Dictator)

Re:OMG, freedom.

[sebaseba]

Is called the European Court of Justice, more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice

Re:OMG, freedom.

[tirefire]

I believe a similar situation happened with the states (or perhaps "colonies" would be a better term) in the formation of the United States of America. Basically all the states agreed to surrender some sovereignty for the common good.

Then some states got pissed off with what the federal government was doing and tried to do something about it (seceding, forming the Confederate States of America). That didn't go so well.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

False assumption. A law doesn't have to be "approved" by the commission, just notified to it. The commission has no authority to approve or disqualify laws in member states.

(The European Court has powers that tend in that direction, but that's a different kettle of bureaucrats entirely.)

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mandelson and Brown *were* elected, repeatedly. They are/were MP's after all. Who leads the parties and who sits where within that party while in goverment has *never* been an electoral choice in the UK. Some of you sentiments I can agree with (poor history in civil liberties matters) but don't try to pull the wool over readers eyes because you're desperate to be emotive.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[cbraescu1]

you can think of the EU as a response to two world wars

While I agree with eevrything you've said above, let me add that basically the EU is the Roman Empire revived.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[HornWumpus]

Join the debate?

Seems like that's exactly what he has done.

To say "move this debate and legislation to a more local government level, come back in 10 years and look at what worked and what didn't" is just as valid a position as any of the competing plans to federalize (whatever the issue at hand).

Many of the 50 states are larger then European counties (and I'm not talking about Luxembourg).

Would you want the federal government picking up your trash? You most likely would if you are from New Jersey (touches nose), but not many other places.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[MartinSchou]

So in the US if one law conflicts with another both are valid[?]

I give you medical cannabis.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

A "strong central govt." can keep vast corporate power in line better. Some corporations have more wealth than some States.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[m50d]

Mandelson isn't an MP; he lost that job due to corruption. And while in the very best of British traditions there's no formal requirement that government ministers should be elected MPs, it's sort of expected.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

And which Government passed the Human Rights Act 1998, making the European Convention on Human Rights enforceable in UK courts? That's right, the Labour one under Tony Blair. I agree that the Government has done some fairly draconian things, but continuing to support the HRA in the face so much opposition from the Conservatives has to earn them some credit.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[swjenner]

It is worth noting that on such matters where Europe makes the law, it is only by act of UK parliament, and can be removed by that parliament... and future parliament are not bound by and may remove themselves should they wish.

This is true, but only until Lisbon is enacted. The Lisbon Treaty (aka the constitution of the European Union) should more properly be called the Lisbon Putsch. This so-called treaty, which no citizen/subject (apart from a few Irish people) has had a vote on, is a putsch... it is a power grab. Lisbon makes the European Union a sovereign state, and the ex nation-state of the United Kingdom becomes a region of the EU.

As an example, before Lisbon the UK, if it was so minded, could repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and cease to be a member state of the European Union... Afterwards, it will have to apply to the Council of Europe, where a majority will have to agree the application, following which the European Parliament (ha ha) will be required to vote on any secession.

I don't know the full details of the ruck which caused the Confederation of Southern states to attempt to secede from the north, but the action precipitated a war, and this is exactly what is going to happen in Europe sometime after Lisbon.

Many Europeans, not just Brits are hoping (and some are praying) that the Irish vote No again (ha ha they got the wrong answer the first time). We can thank the original constructor of the Irish Constitution for this, Eamon DeValera, who understood the natural tendency for politicians to be treacherous. No other member state since the advent of the Lisbon Treaty (which is really the EU Constitution made to be completely unreadable) have had a vote, previously only France, Netherlands and Spain had a vote, and the first two voted no.

See, the problem with the European Union, is that it is an antidemocratic fascist construct, which is only wanted by multinational corporations and the political/government elites. So NO is not an option.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[sydneyfong]

Last I heard (I hear things have been changing for quite a while and I haven't been keeping myself up to date), the UK follows the doctrine of supremacy of parliament.

That is, the parliament can contradict itself and repeal laws it has made in the past, because it is supreme.

So there's no hierarchy in this sense (although lesser bodies that sets rules and regulations obviously need to follow the Acts of parliament).

I believe the participation of the UK into the EU, and the legal implications to the doctrine attracted a bit of academic discussion, ranging from discussion of whether this doctrine needs revision to insisting that this doctrine is still valid because parliament can decide to back out at any time.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[spazdor]

Alright. This was a slam-dunk AC post. Props, whoever you are.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[spazdor]

If I'm not mistaken, this ended up being the plot of "The Girl Next Door"

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

For some matters the Law Lords are the highest court in the land...

s/are/were/

The Law Lords ceased to exist with their final judgements on 30th July.
Their replacement, the UK Supreme Court will sit for the first time on 12th October.

See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/30/law-lords-supreme-court
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6806362.ece
etc.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Atario]

I believe I am a citizen of my state first, and a citizen of the United States second.

1865 called, and it's mad that you didn't learn anything from it.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they get it right at all for the blockbusters. Transformers 2 was not suitable for kids, it deserved a proper 12 or even 15 rating in my eyes; 12A to parents these days is a PG, and a PG means no more consideration than a U.

It's the same with most blockbusters and animated movies stuffed with violence and innuendo. I can only assume the BBFC are taking bribes, or have no real morals. I'm no prude, but I know PG or 12A is going to be seen by all ages of kids.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[16Chapel]

"Contains mild bloody violence and strong fucking swearing."

Re:OMG, freedom.

[broeman]

Yeah, hopefully we don't get a Abraham Lincoln who decided against the constitution and didn't want states to succeed. For now a European country have a five year waiting period from leaving the union, but then again, nobody have tried it yet (though Switzerland did leave the EFTA without issues).

Re:OMG, freedom.

[16Chapel]

Uh, so we're a society based on slavery, military conquest and a common language?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[16Chapel]

Dear Queen,

Yes I am:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/aboutcitizenship/

Re:OMG, freedom.

[16Chapel]

I want it. Most of my friends want it.

As others have said here, I trust the European Parliament, and I especially trust the European Judiciary.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Hognoxious]

And aqueducts. And the wine, don't forget the wine.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Hognoxious]

It appears that a French or German person can be punished by a UK law that hasn't been written yet by the Parliament (ex post facto).

The only possible way they could have been punished is if they were selling in the UK. They'd be subject to UK law in the UK just like anyone else physically p[resent there - EU or no EU. The law was published in the UK in 1984, and ignorance of the law is no defence.

If I'm wrong, name one of these unfairly convicted foreigners you speak of.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck it and eat it?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[swjenner]

Maybe you do. Maybe you are a big fan of textbook fascism!

But here is the interesting bit, would you think that if we were asked, that you (and your friends) would get it?

Ireland said they didn't want it and now they are being asked again (drat their constitution requires it)! If Paddy votes "NO" again, are they going to keep being asked until they give the "right" answer, or are they going to bring Lisbon to the Irish (and the rest of us) by the back door?

Or another scenario, suppose the Irish vote "yes" are the EU going to give it a best out of three vote?... HA HA, you know the answer.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[swjenner]

As others have said here, I trust the European Parliament, and I especially trust the European Judiciary.

Ha Ha... Generally speaking I trust my local barber, but he only changes my appearance whereas the EP only gives the appearance of being able to change anything. In reality it cannot actually change anything, that is all decreed by the anti-democratic and fascist European Commission or politbureau.

As for the European judiciary, it is foreign and operates under the corpus juris system (guilty until you prove yourself innocent), it does not recognise the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Oh well, I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[commodore64_love]

Hardly. The Roman Empire's strength came from the accumulated wealth it acquired when it defeated Carthage, Egypt, and Palestine. It's why the western half collapsed, but the eastern half survived until almost 1500 A.D.

None of these crucial regions are part of the modern EU which really traces its roots back to the Empire of Charlemagne (which extended from Spain to Poland), and the earlier barbarian tribes.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[commodore64_love]

1933's German and Italian National Socialists called, and they're mad that you didn't learn anything from them.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[commodore64_love]

A French citizen could be punished for selling a porn video to a 12-year-old British kid (by mail-order). He would be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned in France for violating the UK law.

The problem is that the UK law is now voided by the EU treaty, so that French person should be freed, because it's as if the law never existed.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[commodore64_love]

In the first century BC a man named Spartacus also tried to "secede" and bring freedom to slaves. That didn't go so well either (the rebels were killed), but does that mean Spartacus and his followers were wrong?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Hognoxious]

I specifically asked for a name, not theoretical coulda woulda shoulda bullshit. When you have one, just one, get back to me.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[commodore64_love]

Teen pregnancy rates will probably drop, because now instead of living in Victorian-style ignorance ("Orgasm? What's an orgasm?"), the teens will finally learn what "sex" is thanks to watching these no-longer restricted videos, and what not to do if you don't want to become a mommy or daddy.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[16Chapel]

You keep calling it 'fascist' - could you justify that? It sounds to me like you don't really understand what that means.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Hognoxious]

Psst, don't tell the Germans and the French! They still think they have a say in what happens in their countries.

Makes a change from trying to have a say in each everybody else's.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Hognoxious]

I learnt lots. Should I ever become head of a central European power with military ambitions, I will absolutely not try and fight the British and the Russians at the same time.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[swjenner]

Mussolini wrote: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"

The European Union is an example of this, and as such, is fascist.

Perhaps you imagine that all fascist countries have dictators called Hitler or Franco or Mussolini, they do not. Fascism is defined by an absence of democracy, and an unholy alliance between mega corps and the political elites.

A couple of examples that I have just read about today are, first Intel have just ploughed hundreds of thousands of Euros into the coffers of the "yes" camp in the forthcoming Irish referendum. Second a company called Serco has just announced record profits despite a general recession... What does this company do, it works exclusively with EU governments to deliver public services, all of its sales are paid for out of taxation.

There is no place in the ambitions of the EU for such niceties as elections to parliaments where power is concentrated. The EP is a talking shop with no lawmaking powers, it can only (but rarely does through lack of any real opposition) say no to the edicts of the unelected European Commission.

As I believe I explained earlier, the Irish are all that lies between the end of 27 nation-states and the birth of one European Union with a number of "regions", none of which are known as England.

No other nation-states were allowed a vote; an earlier version of Lisbon called the EU constitution was voted down twice, EU member states are full of people who don't know how to vote, they cannot be trusted, if it was possible for the European Commission to elect another people... it would.

Unfortunately Ireland already had a little thing called a constitution which demanded a vote, they voted "no" in June last year and that was wrong, so they are being given another chance. From what I am hearing the "noes" are gaining ground rapidly.

In the event that they vote "yes" do you suppose that they will ever have another vote on this issue? The answer is no, but what if they had voted "yes" last time, would they be voting again in October... again, the answer is no.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[commodore64_love]

Yeah but where's the topless women, promiscuity, and blood sacrifices? (I've watched the BBC's Rome - it must be true.)

Re:OMG, freedom.

[mog007]

Those same objections were made in the United States before the civil war. Until then, people didn't see themselves as "American" but "Virginian", Pennsylvanian", and so on. Federalism slowly erodes sovereignty, unless the federal power is kept in check, and that checking system is maintained.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear 16Chapel,

Off with your head!

    HMTQ.

so who will

[acrobg]

be the first to sell pr0n to little kids without any age-rating?

Re:so who will

[Hognoxious]

Mr Patel from the corner shop - he already does.

Re:so who will

[Hynee]

be the first to sell pr0n to little kids without any age-rating?

I think there'll be other laws to cover that, like p@edophile laws.

(I know parent is a joke)

I wonder why they don't just change the names and dates on a copy of the old law, get a chorum at the house of commons, get trusted speed readers to check that the old and new laws are the same, and pass it as some sort of emergency act. Surely the don't need Europe to sign their own emergency legislation in Britain?

The loophole probably won't be exploited by any shopfront stores.

Re:so who will

[Kokuyo]

Yes, because this is SUCH an emergency. Kids will turn into goat slaughtering satanist child molesters INSTANTLY because of this, mark my words!

Re:so who will

[Amouth]

But what about all the people who went to jail because they sold 18+ content to a 16 year old with a fake ID?

who is going to investigate the wrongfully imprisoned?

Re:so who will

[PitaBred]

It's true! It happened to me!

Re:so who will

[VJ42]

I wonder why they don't just change the names and dates on a copy of the old law, get a chorum at the house of commons, get trusted speed readers to check that the old and new laws are the same, and pass it as some sort of emergency act.

Because that would be an abuse of due process. Whatever /. tells you, we're not a dictatorship yet.

Re:so who will

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that would miss a golden opportunity to tag bits onto it like anti-blasphemy (to help with sharia law), making it illegal to criticise the government or release undercover footage of the police being naughty... etc.

All the folks who want that sort of stuff (especially the religious folks I guess) will be preparing their submissions already.

Microsoft probably has a suggested clause ready making it an offence to play video using Linux...

Re:so who will

[Chris Burke]

Kids will turn into goat slaughtering satanist child molesters INSTANTLY because of this, mark my words!

I say it'll take a week.

Anyone else want to join the pool?

Re:so who will

[Anonymous Coward]

it will take three months to get a chance to pass the replacement because no-one cares enough to mess up the schedule for this. Actually passing it, which will probably go through on the nod, isn't likely to take long, apart from the procedural requirements, which aren't overly onerous.

What I wonder is why they can't just notify Brussels now.

Re:so who will

[mdwh2]

Indeed, the end of British civilization as we know it is at an end. Parents woke up this morning to find that pornographers are now beaming images directly into the minds of their children.

Only today I wandered into my local video store, hoping to find a copy of Grotesque, only to be confronted by a swarm of children, all rushing to buy copies of Terminator and Robocop. I overheard one child claiming how much of a novelty it was to buy DVDs in a shop, as opposed to just downloading them for free like they usually did.

If I'm really lucky, perhaps I'll be able to pick up an uncut copy of Buffy , before this emergency legislation is brought in.

Re:so who will

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the don't need Europe to sign their own emergency legislation in Britain?

Well, yes, in this specific case, this is the whole point - that the EU was not notified so the original act was invalid, and that would still apply.

Presumably we agreed in some treaty that these sort of laws had to be notified because the EU is supposed to be a single market in goods, and this law restricts certain types of goods from being sold without being classified etc.

I suppose the UK could *try* to get away with it under some sort of 'emergency, threat to the nation' type clause but this probably wouldn't wash with the European Courts.

Hang On

[totallyarb]

Can a British lawyer please tell me at what point notification of the European Commission became a requirement for an Act of Parliament to become legally binding? Surely such a surrender of sovereignty was exactly the sort of thing Thatcher opposed?

Re:Hang On

[jfengel]

IANA(British)L, but here's the gist:

The UK joined the EEC in 1973. Council Directive 83/189/EEC was passed in March 1983. It says that if a country passes "standards" it has to notify other countries.

See, the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about. It makes for a "gotcha" situation: "Hey, you didn't follow the standard, and we're going to prosecute you under our laws, even though you followed all the rules you knew about."

Re:Hang On

[Dr. Hok]

Can a British lawyer please tell me at what point notification of the European Commission became a requirement for an Act of Parliament to become legally binding? Surely such a surrender of sovereignty was exactly the sort of thing Thatcher opposed?

You call that surrender of sovereignty? Think again. The government didn't have to ask for permission to pass this law, it was only supposed to inform the European Commission. In other words: make it public, so their European partner countries know what's happening in their neighborhood. That's just common sense.

Re:Hang On

[thirty-seven]

Can a British lawyer please tell me at what point notification of the European Commission became a requirement for an Act of Parliament to become legally binding? Surely such a surrender of sovereignty was exactly the sort of thing Thatcher opposed?

IANABL. In fact, I am neither British nor a lawyer. I was wondering the same thing as you - since when was it a requirement that an Act of Parliament could not become legally binding until a supranational body is notified?

A bit of Wikipediaing and then Googling turned up that: It is Directive 83/189 from the European Committee for Standardization that required this. It only applies to technical standards and regulations, not all statutes. Presumably, the requirement for notification is so that the different standards and requirements for (in this case) video recordings can be collected and available to other member countries by the European Committee for Standardization.

So reporting new Acts that affect technical standards and regulations to the ECS sounds like a very good idea, but I don't see why this would necessarily make unreported Acts non-binding.

However, although the British Government is dropping all current prosecutions under that law, they are arguing that all past convictions are still valid. It seems very unusual that you can argue that past convictions for violating an invalid law are valid, unless the Government will argue that it was an Act of Parliament and so was really legally binding, but now it is being rescinded non-retroactively and will be re-enacted in order to meet their treaty obligations. To me, that seems like the most reasonable position that is consistent with the Government's actions on this. Then again, IANABL.

Re:Hang On

[camperdave]

Ah! So if they up their standards they are legally required to tell other countries "Up yours!"

Re:Hang On

[eln]

The EU is designed in part to be a very close union between member states, in order to combat the extreme nationalism that predicated two major ruinous conflicts on the European continent in the 20th century. Every EU nation gives up some measure of sovereignty (although really not that much in the grand scheme of things) in order to promote the greater good.

Even having said that, though, I would argue that the simple requirement to inform other nations of standards and laws you pass is not really any more of a surrendering of sovereignty than most other provisions in any other treaty between nations.

Re:Hang On

[Mikkeles]

I'm curious as to why "Ignorance of the Law" is no excuse for citizens, but must be specially handled for companies.

Re:Hang On

[commodore64_love]

>>>the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about
>>>

Well that's stupid.

The State of Utah can ban playboy from bookstores (and they have), but they are not any obligation to inform the other 49 states or the U.S. Congress about this change in law. It's called sovereignty - Utah does whatever it pleases within its own boundaries. I'm surprised to hear that the UK has less power over its own laws than does Utah, and I wonder if the EU may be exerting too much power.

Aside-

One cool example is when Delaware passed a law forbidding building new chemical plants without the DE Legislature's permission. Well just a few years later New Jersey built a new plant along the Delaware Bay. Delaware immediately sued NJ, and the NJ governor told delaware to fuck off, and so on. The U.S. Supreme Court dug-out 400 year old documents, reviewed the original charters, and proclaimed Delaware was correct - they own that beachfront. So New Jersey was forced to dismantle their construction and restore the waterline to its original appearance.

Re:Hang On

[Dupple]

Except it was the tories that signed the Maastricht treaty under John Major, which gave up more british sovereignty than anything else. Not saying Labour would have been any better, but it was the tories that gave up a lot of our indepenance

Re:Hang On

[Anonymous Coward]

>>The UK joined the EEC in 1973. Council Directive 83/189/EEC was passed in March 1983.
>>It says that if a country passes "standards" it has to notify other countries.

>>See, the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't
>>do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about.
>>It makes for a "gotcha" situation: "Hey, you didn't follow the standard, and we're
>>going to prosecute you under our laws, even though you followed all the rules you
>>knew about."

That Directive would have been known in the back room as the Italy Directive. ;-)

Re:Hang On

[c6gunner]

Who said anything about companies?

Re:Hang On

[totallyarb]

If we were only talking about a requirement that made the law unenforceable when applied to importers from elsewhere in the UK without notification, you would be right. But in this situation, application of a law domestically becomes impossible without reference to an outside party. You don't think that limits sovereignty?

I'll admit it's a subtle difference, but I don't think a country can truly be considered sovereign when its internal laws can be invalidated by a failure to notify an external party.

Re:Hang On

[totallyarb]

Council Directive 83/189/EEC was passed in March 1983.

Surely, though, an EEC Directive can only govern issues pertaining to trade between EU countries? I can see how under this directive other countries in the EU could be freed of the requirement to comply (or at least, protected from prosecution if they failed to comply), but I don't understand how non-notification would invalidate the law itself.

True or false: If I, a British Subject, today sold an 18-rated DVD to a 12-year old, I could not be prosecuted because some civil servant forgot to tell Brussels that they changed the law 25 years ago.

Basically, I'm asking: is this bad lawmaking or just bad reporting?

Re:Hang On

[corbettw]

However, Utah cannot pass a law requiring a California porn producer to register the ages of the actors in one of his productions with the clerk in Salt Lake City. That would be a violation of the Commerce Clause and any Federal court would chuck it out the nearest window. It is my understand that this one of the requirements of this Act, and it appears to be the requirement that caused all the trouble.

Re:Hang On

[iamflimflam1]

Never stopped them before

Re:Hang On

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a certain set of rules that must be followed for making laws. They didn't follow the rules, therefore the law is not valid. The fact that the rule was about notifying external entities doesn't matter here.
I don't think following your own rules is a limitation of sovereignty. The rule about notifying external entities was added when they entered the relevant treaty and they entered the treaty voluntarily.

Re:Hang On

[JasterBobaMereel]

This is nothing to do with EU law overruling UK ones ....

We agreed that if we set standards for certain things then we would inform the EU, so other countries could implement the same standards, and we agreed that until we did so we would not implement those standards ourselves ... then we implemented a law that set standards and we failed to inform the EU .... so *by our own laws* this law is invalid

It's like Delaware saying that any law affecting it's neighbours it passes is not valid until they tell their neighbours about it, not telling them, then prosecuting people using the new law even though by their own laws it is invalid ....

Re:Hang On

[Anonymous Coward]

So..., you're saying..., what? That this actually has nothing at all to do with "sovereignty", and that the fake libertarian pinheads bleating about it are all wet?

Yeah, that was pretty much my take on it too.

Much more troubling is the fact that this bureaucratic slip-up has become international news. Honestly, does anyone really expect a 90-day wave of porn being sold to children?

Re:Hang On

[commodore64_love]

Well of course not. Why should Califonia be obligated tio enforce Utah law? For that matter why should France be obligated to enforce UK laws? This EU system is making less-and-less sense the more I learn about it.

Re:Hang On

[commodore64_love]

Therefore all convictions since 1984 should be nullified, since the law itself is voided by the treaty.

Re:Hang On

[svtdragon]

Mod parent up! This has interesting implications.

Re:Hang On

[Anonymous Coward]

Council Directive 83/189/EEC was passed in March 1983.

Surely, though, an EEC Directive can only govern issues pertaining to trade between EU countries? I can see how under this directive other countries in the EU could be freed of the requirement to comply (or at least, protected from prosecution if they failed to comply), but I don't understand how non-notification would invalidate the law itself.

True or false: If I, a British Subject, today sold an 18-rated DVD to a 12-year old, I could not be prosecuted because some civil servant forgot to tell Brussels that they changed the law 25 years ago.

Basically, I'm asking: is this bad lawmaking or just bad reporting?

Because it prevents someone from Brussels from visiting and getting in trouble for selling an 18-rated DVD to a 12-year old.

Re:Hang On

[Trepidity]

Thatcher liked laissez faire capitalism more than she liked sovereignty, and this is a pro-free-trade directive, intended to ensure that EU member states don't have hidden restrictions on trade that aren't broadcast to their trading partners ahead of time.

Re:Hang On

[7-Vodka]

Oh well when you put it like that, how could anybody possibly think that the European Commission overturning laws in England is in any way a loss of sovereignty...

*Rolls Eyes*

Re:Hang On

[sjames]

What I find interesting is how many legislatures don't even feel a need to inform the people subject to the laws that they have been changed.

Re:Hang On

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Therefore all convictions since 1984 should be nullified, since the law itself is voided by the treaty.

That's how it would work in the US, where being declared invalid (at least on constitutional grounds) means the law was NEVER valid, according to the Supreme Court.

However, the UK authorities seem to think that similar rule does not exist under their legal system.

Re:Hang On

[MartinSchou]

I'm surprised to hear that the UK has less power over its own laws than does Utah

So, if Utah were to allow medical cannabis or just regular cannabis, are you entirely certain that people in Utah couldn't be arrested and charged for breaking federal laws against that particular substance? And that their stash wouldn't be confiscated?

Re:Hang On

[DocHoncho]

How dare you try to stop some good old fashioned hand-wringing with your dastardly logic! For shame.

Re:Hang On

[m50d]

The State of Utah can ban playboy from bookstores (and they have), but they are not any obligation to inform the other 49 states or the U.S. Congress about this change in law. It's called sovereignty - Utah does whatever it pleases within its own boundaries.

So as a business owner wanting to run a bookstore in the US (let's say an internet one, so the idea of customers from multiple states makes sense), I have to separately investigate the laws of each state, and I have to do it myself, because getting all the states to publish their laws in a single place would be a violation of sovereignty?

I'm surprised to hear that the UK has less power over its own laws than does Utah

It's not like this gives the EU any power over the law - they don't get any option of refusing to accept the notification. It's just that they have to be notified. How is this any more a surrender of sovereignty than requiring the laws to be written down?

Re:Hang On

[Atario]

The State of Utah can ban playboy from bookstores (and they have), but they are not any obligation to inform the other 49 states or the U.S. Congress about this change in law. It's called sovereignty - Utah does whatever it pleases within its own boundaries.

Absolutely wrong. They can pass whatever laws they want, but if those laws are superseded by federal law, federal law overrides their state laws.

Re:Hang On

[feepcreature]

Surely, though, an EEC Directive can only govern issues pertaining to trade between EU countries?

Not true.

Past directives have affected topics like: anti-discrimination measures, the environment, intellectual property, privacy and data protection, technology and safety, weights and measures, pharmaceuticals, culture, and wildlife and nature conservation.

Even if true, your restriction would be no more limiting than the US rule about for the purposes of regulating interstate commerce.

Re:Hang On

[feepcreature]

The UK joined the EEC in 1973. Council Directive 83/189/EEC was passed in March 1983. It says that if a country passes "standards" it has to notify other countries.

But the directive would only have effect in UK law under the enabling legislation subsequently introduced in the UK (or resulting from ECJ judgements based on the doctrine that the UK had failed to properly implement the directive). The UK implementing legislation could have stated that standards must be notified to the EU, but whether or not it did, and whether it specified that standards-related legislation would not come into effect without such notification are two further and distinct questions.

Even if both were true, parliament cannot bind its successors (at least according to diehard "parliamentary sovereignty" constitutional theorists), so that if it wanted, it could ignore any such rule. If it did not explicitly disclaim such a restriction (assuming there is one) courts might well hold that the restriction had implicit effect due to the earlier legislation implementing the directive.

As a side issue, if any law explicitly disclaimed such a requirement, you could have a constitutional ambiguity (crisis?) on which the UK courts (and possibly eventually the ECJ) would have to rule. If the UK wanted to push things, and the courts were minded to agree, UK courts could refuse to implement or observe the ECJ rulings where specifically overridden by the UK, and there would be a full blown EU constitutional crisis. It's unlikely to happen though, but that would probably be the shape of the underlying doctrine.

So it's not been shown that there is any legislative basis for the claim that the "law" is invalid because it has not been notified to the EU.

IANAL etc...

Re:Hang On

[commodore64_love]

Yes Utah citizens CAN be arrested by federal police, but such an act would be declared unconstitutional, because no power was ever given to Congress to ban marijuana (see Constitution). In fact many federal judges have already reached that conclusion and are freeing people from prison.

Re:Hang On

[commodore64_love]

>>>So as a business owner wanting to run a bookstore in the US (let's say an internet one)

It's not illegal to sell Playboy by mail-order in Utah. It's only illegal to display them in stores located within the state. But to answer your question - yes you must comply with local laws. So if you were Borders Bookstore, you would have to make sure not to sell playboys to all our nationwide stores, except the ones in Utah. Otherwise you'll find yourself in a suit, Utah v. Borders, for breaking the law.

Another example is California which forbids cars unless they are at least LEV-II in pollution control. Volkswagen's diesel cars did not pass, so they made the conscious decision not to sell diesels to California from 2002 to 2006, but still sold them everywhere else. They resumed selling to Californians once they had developed newer, cleaner cars.

Re:Hang On

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>The State of Utah can ban playboy from bookstores (and they have)

>>Absolutely wrong. They can pass whatever laws they want, but if those laws are superseded by federal law, federal law overrides their state laws.

(sigh) Yet another product of our horrible government-run education. YOU are absolutely wrong. Federal laws are superseded by Constitutional laws, and in regards to playboy magazine sales, the Constitution is clear - the power is reserved to the States. Therefore Utah is free to ban the magazine from bookstores.

Re:Hang On

[mdwh2]

Surely, though, an EEC Directive can only govern issues pertaining to trade between EU countries?

This issue does affect trade, because it means the UK was banning material that was legal in other EU countries. From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/26/video-recordings-act :

"the reason why the act should have been referred to the European commission is because it constitutes a restraint on intra-EU trade, in that it entails that videos or DVDs which have not been certificated by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) cannot legally be imported from another EU country and then sold or rented in the UK."

Basically, I'm asking: is this bad lawmaking or just bad reporting?

I think the VRA is bad lawmaking in itself. And maybe if the VRA hadn't been rushed through in the first place as a result of kneejerk moral panicing over "video nasties", they wouldn't have made such sloppy errors.

Sadly it looks like we'll repeat it all over again, with scaremongering over "pr0n sold to children" and rushing it through with "emergency legislation".

Re:Hang On

[jfengel]

> if it wanted, it could ignore any such rule.

I imagine it could, at the cost of essentially withdrawing from the EU. Which seems a rather drastic solution for the right to not tell anybody how you label your DVDs.

This is not considered a constitutional crisis, just an administrative oversight. The law was passed in 1984, and the EEC directive in 1983. They probably just hadn't gotten the hang of it yet.

Re:Hang On

[Atario]

I like you you clipped out the part of your post I was actually addressing: that Utah is somehow "sovereign", and can do whatever it wants. It cannot do whatever it wants, and for you to pretend otherwise is a reflection of your own personal lack of education and neocon-culture-induced allergy to the public acting in its own collective self-interest.

Re:Hang On

[mog007]

Does the United Kingdom currently offer protection against ex post facto laws?

If anybody starts selling porn to children in the three months it'll take for this law to get re-passed, they might find themselves in hot water.

Re:Hang On

[mog007]

You should read amendments 1 and 14 again. I'm sure Utah's state constitution also has some language about protecting the freedom of speech, all the other state constitutions I've read have language like that.

Re:Hang On

[feepcreature]

> if it wanted, it could ignore any such rule.

I imagine it could, at the cost of essentially withdrawing from the EU.

Which is why I described such an (unlikely) step as causing a constitutional crisis.

Which seems a rather drastic solution for the right to not tell anybody how you label your DVDs.

This is not considered a constitutional crisis, just an administrative oversight. The law was passed in 1984, and the EEC directive in 1983. They probably just hadn't gotten the hang of it yet.

Quite. That would be a drastic step... and not a solution to any "problem" discussed in TFA.

But my main point remains that nothing in the article or summary or the parent posting states WHETHER OR NOT, when implementing the directive, PARLIAMENT DID introduce a requirement to notify the EU of "standards". Nor have we heard whether any such a requirement included the feature that a failure to comply would render invalid any or all of the relevant legislation.

It is the UK Law that counts, not the directive. If parliament did not explicitly lay down that laws would be invalid, then there is no reason to believe the law is not valid.

Re:Hang On

[jfengel]

> It is the UK Law that counts, not the directive.

And (as I understand it) in joining the EEC, the UK agreed to abide by council directives, even those introduced after the fact. The relevant law is the European Communities Act of 1972:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1972/ukpga_19720068_en_1

passed by a vote of 356 to 244.

The details are a matter for lawyers, but they did adopt a treaty. I haven't dug out chapter-and-verse, so I don't know the details, but I gather that the details do in fact exist.

Re:Hang On

[feepcreature]

That law gives legal effect to any treaty designated as a "Community Treaty".

European Council Directives are a different matter, and need to be specifically implemented by each member state.
There is a treaty obligation to do this, but it is not automatic. Different states often implement rules with very significant differences.

Hence the earlier discussion as to how exactly parliament had enacted the requirement to notify "standards" to the EU, and whether there was any statutory basis for regarding the Video Recordings Act 1984 as invalid without such notification.

This is absurd

[mpeskett]

How exactly do 25 years pass without anyone noticing that a law, that's supposed to be official and in force, hasn't actually been enacted?

It's beyond a joke... although I'm sure there will be plenty of jokes.

Re:This is absurd

[EddyPearson]

Thats not how we do it in the UK mate. Here we make as many laws as possible, criminalizing as many people as we can. This so that when we decide we don't like them anymore there's a quick exit waiting. It also makes it easier for the police to root out the bad guys. When everybody has committed at least one crime, gives them leverage.

This was an embarressing oversight, normal service will be resumed shortly.

Re:This is absurd

[dogeatery]

"This is how we do it in the US, mate"

There, fixed that for you

Re:This is absurd

[Rayeth]

Oh what a coincidence! I think this is the same strategy the US uses for drug and patent policy. It all makes so much sense now.

Re:This is absurd

[Aladrin]

More importantly ,what about anyone convicted under that act while it wasn't really an act? Do they get their time, money, etc back?

Re:This is absurd

[Xphile101361]

I think by now you've ran out of continents to ship these people off to

Re:This is absurd

[corbettw]

Thank God my ancestors threw off the yoke of British suzerainty! We in the United States would never stand for such a system!

Should I have used the <sarcasm> tag?

Re:This is absurd

[Radical Emu]

Nah, they'll get nothing back, the invalidity of the Act is coming across as more of an "oh no, I left the iron on" situation, it can't stop the house-fire. Would be interesting to see if anyone tries to seek compensation though. Personally, even when I was 7, I could walk down to the local video rentals and take out a 15, or 18 certificate, looking back it seems amazing, but I guess that was the 80's!

Re:This is absurd

[Plunky]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Re:This is absurd

[Esteanil]

The moon won't be practical for a penal colony until we've got a space elevator.

I mean, up until then the cost of getting these warm bodies into orbit still living (and useful for mining, building luxury hoteÃs for rich tourists, building the walls that'll keep themselves out, later on...) is way too expensive...

It'd get practical real quick with a space elevator on the earth & one on the moon, though...

Scandalous

[RobVB]

FTA:

"Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense," she said.

So people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.

Re:Scandalous

[TaoPhoenix]

Of course not.

"An emergency Injunction was passed until a formal law could be passed."
The Censorship Nazgul don't give up that easily.

Re:Scandalous

[Darth Sdlavrot]

FTA:

"Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense," she said.

So people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.

Overturn their conviction perhaps.

Re:Scandalous

[thirty-seven]

FTA:

"Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense," she said.

So people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.

It seems very unusual that you can argue that past convictions for violating an invalid law are valid, unless the Government will argue that it was an Act of Parliament and so was really legally binding, but now it is being rescinded non-retroactively and will be re-enacted in order to meet their treaty obligations. To me, that seems like the most reasonable position that is consistent with the Government's actions on this.

Re:Scandalous

[commodore64_love]

>>>people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.

Jeez. More stupidity. People should not be forced to adhere to a law, or be punished by a law, that has been declared unconstitutional. "All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, early 1800s.

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966)."

Apparently the European Union and/or UK Parliament doesn't understand these basic precepts.
Since the law has been declared unconstitutional, all crimes or punishment under that law
should be reverted back to the first day of enactment (1984), as if that law never existed.

Re:Scandalous

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.

Jeez. More stupidity. People should not be forced to adhere to a law, or be punished by a law, that has been declared unconstitutional. "All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, early 1800s.

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966)."

Apparently the European Union and/or UK Parliament doesn't understand these basic precepts.
Since the law has been declared unconstitutional, all crimes or punishment under that law
should be reverted back to the first day of enactment (1984), as if that law never existed.

What are you talking about? Britain doesn't even have a constitution.

Re:Scandalous

[DrJimbo]

What are you talking about? Britain doesn't even have a constitution.

No problemo. They can take ours. We're sure not using it.

Re:Scandalous

[theaveng]

The various treaties comprise the EU constitution. No it isn't set-down on a single piece of paper like the U.S., but it still has the same effect of being the supreme law that nullifies lesser laws (as this article shows).

Re:Scandalous

[digitig]

What are you talking about? Britain doesn't even have a constitution.

[Sigh]. Slashdot myth #17. Britain (and the UK as a whole) does have a constitution. What it doesn't have is a single constitutional document.

Re:Scandalous

[jimicus]

We don't have a written constitution in the UK.

Well, in a manner of speaking we do, insofar as there are a number of laws which form the basis of how everything else hangs together, but there's no single document you can point to and say "There. That's the constitution".

Re:Scandalous

[shutdown -p now]

The law hasn't been declared unconstitutional; merely invalidated.

Re:Scandalous

[theaveng]

The treaties you have with the EU are your constitution,
and they are what was used to make this law unconstitutional (nullified by treaty).

QUOTING WIKIPEDIA: "On another analysis, which was first authoritatively articulated by the European Court of Justice in the 1963 case of Van Gend en Loos, EU law represents a new legal regime which is qualitatively different from other forms of international law and which takes precedence over the internal legal and constitutional arrangements of member states. On this view, the notion that Parliament could unilaterally legislate "as a matter of British law" to withdraw the UK from the ambit of EU law is anachronistic and unreal[citation needed].

"In any event, British membership of the EU has had a very considerable impact on the constitution and governance of the country. In the Factortame litigation, for example, the House of Lords took the unprecedented step of granting an injunction to "disapply" an Act of Parliament (the Merchant Shipping Act 1988). While this step can in principle be argued to be consistent with traditional ideas of Parliamentary supremacy, it does illustrate the profound impact that EU membership has had. The merits of continued British involvement in the EU continue to be hotly debated within the UK."

LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#EU_law

Re:Scandalous

[seizurebattlerobot]

What a silly comment you've made. The UK has no constitution. The Wikipedia article you link points out that the power vacuum created by the lack of a constitution is partially filled by various court rulings and decrees put in place by the ruling body.

You might as well argue that a blind man has "sight" because he has memorized the layout of his house. This semantic argument doesn't change the fact that he'll be bumbling around for a while if you rearrange the furniture.

And neither does your argument change the fact that without a constitution, UK citizens' individual rights and freedoms are worse for wear.

Re:Scandalous

[vain gloria]

What are you talking about? Britain doesn't even have a constitution.

Claiming that Britain lacks a constitution on the basis that no-one has written it all down in one place is akin to claiming that the USA doesn't have a head of state because Obama doesn't wear a pointy gold hat.

Re:Scandalous

[digitig]

All you are doing is showing that you don't actually know what a constitution is or does. A constitution doesn't necessarily ensure citizen rights -- it could even explicitly deny them.

Re:Scandalous

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not.

"An emergency Injunction was passed until a formal law could be passed."

That's a key point. It's an injunction to make sure that people with prior convictions don't all rise up and lodge appeals on such a minor technicality during the next three months. When a new law is drafted (with due notice sent to Europe) it can be written in such a way to encompass all convictions made under the 1984 act. They can keep prior convictions out of the courts with an injunction, but they can't create one to cover any and all cases that will come up during the next three months. In the meantime the police won't be silly enough to start a prosecution case that will be thrown out immediately because of this loophole: they'll wait three months and then carry on.

Business as usual...

Re:Scandalous

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Britain doesn't even have a constitution.

No problemo. They can take ours. We're sure not using it.

It's ok, we have one, we just haven't told the European Commission about it.

Oh crap.

Re:Scandalous

[RegularFry]

Oh, for mod points...

Re:Scandalous

[Esteanil]

Mod parent up

Re:Scandalous

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK does have a constitution, it's just not codified into a single document.

To the grandparent; trying to apply US constitutional law to the relationship between the UK and the US is absurd. The then-Bill was voted upon by both Houses of Parliament and got Royal Assent and thus was enacted. Screwing up notifying it to the EC doesn't make it 'unconstitutional', evidently just not enforceable now we've discovered the error.

Re:Scandalous

[Cimexus]

The UK doesn't have a WRITTEN Constitution that you can point to as a single document and say "look - the Constitution!". It does have a series of other laws (beginning from the Magna Carta onwards) and common law jurisprudence/precedent that, when read together as a single body of law, form a Constitution.

Quite a few countries are like this - where only some (or none) of their Constitution is in the form of a written statute or document. The US on the other hand, having been formed 'from scratch' so to speak after the Revolution, had the advantage of being able to collate all their ideals into a single founding document.

For some light reading on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

Re:Scandalous

[Hognoxious]

It doesn't have to be called a constitution nor have "constitution" written at the top in big letters in order to be a constitution.

Constitution is as constitution does.

Re:Scandalous

[seizurebattlerobot]

A constitution is the foundation that provides the law of the land.

Protip: If not everybody agrees which documents are and which documents are not part of the constitution, your country doesn't have one.

Re:Scandalous

[seizurebattlerobot]

It doesn't have to be called a constitution nor have "constitution" written at the top in big letters in order to be a constitution.

Correct. But a constitution does have to provide a foundation for the law of the land. A whole bunch of disparate court rulings and royal edicts do not meet the definition. There is no legal definition or agreement for what is or is not part of the UK constitution. These components of the "constitution" can be easily overridden.

You are arguing that the amorphous legal traditions of the UK are its constitution. This is silly. You might as well argue that English common law is a "constitution" as well. It's equally as silly.

Of course, arguing definitional semantics is pretty silly in and of itself... :)

Re:Scandalous

[mog007]

The Consitution of the United States actually sets forth the SECOND government to be in control of the post-revolutionary British Colonies. The Articles of Confederation were our system of inter-state communication during the war, and after it.

Re:Scandalous

[digitig]

I'm pretty sure you can find some folks in the states who don't agree with what the constitution is; maybe the occasional Texan who thinks that the State should still be independent. It doesn't need everybody to agree to it, it just needs the authorities to agree to it. And they do in the UK, just as they do in the USA.

Another implication

[elrous0]

Wouldn't that mean that everyone prosecuted under it for the last 25 years is also innocent?

Re:Another implication

[RobVB]

You would think so, but apparently they solved that problem by just telling them to STFU.

Re:Another implication

[lwsimon]

I'm not familiar enough with British law to say for sure, but in the US I believe they could appeal and challenge the basis of the case. If the law wasn't enacted, they can't put a new one on the books and keep them in jail - it would be an ex post facto law.

IANAL.

Re:Another implication

[oahazmatt]

Pending prosecutions will be abandoned, but existing convictions will stand.
So, yes, they will just keep them in jail.

Re:Another implication

[badfish99]

"Existing convictions will stand"

In other words "existing convictions will collapse as soon as they are challenged in court, but let's lie about this and hope that everyone believes us".

Re:Another implication

[Anonymous Cowar]

If all of the judges in the land believe it is within their power to continue with the lie and refuse to hear appeals based on this, guess what happens?

Re:Another implication

[bheekling]

If all of the judges in the land believe it is within their power to continue with the lie and refuse to hear appeals based on this, guess what happens?

Anarchy?

Re:Another implication

[Anonymous Cowar]

Only after tea but before supper.

Re:Another implication

[HoppQ]

They take it to the EU courts?

Re:Another implication

[TubeSteak]

If all of the judges in the land believe it is within their power to continue with the lie and refuse to hear appeals based on this, guess what happens?

A. Start a media campaign to name and shame
B. Take it to the European Court of Human Rights.

Re:Another implication

[lwsimon]

That's like a legislature getting together and deciding that pi = 3. Couldn't happen.

Re:Another implication

[geekoid]

NO.
In the UK, and a lot of Europe, if you our convicted of the crime, you still do the time even if it's overturned...even if they use your case to overturn it.

Ain't that a kicker?

Re:Another implication

[digitig]

That's like a legislature getting together and deciding that pi = 3. Couldn't happen.

Indeed it couldn't. Such an attempt would never get past state senate.

Re:Another implication

[idontgno]

Didn't happen, too. Though it was close, kinda. The Indiana General Assembly almost did that, maybe. Some evidence indicates that many of the legislators in question considered the whole thing a joke and were pursuing it, to borrow a modern phrase, "for lulz".

Re:Another implication

[Anonymous Coward]

All the judges in this land may well believe that. But one of the wonders of the EU is the European Court of Justice. I for one would be very interested in seeing one of the appeals landing here and seeing how the Eurocrats would deal with this.

Re:Another implication

[u38cg]

The law is not invalid. However, if prosecuted, you can challenge the government on their standing to bring the case, at least as I understand it, so new prosecutions will fail.

Re:Another implication

[Anonymous Coward]

And they will win. This is exactly what will happen - should be fun to watch!

at least they're fixing it

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling that in a "law and order" country like the US, the law would never actually stop being enforced - law enforcement and judiciary would make up something about the "spirit" of the law or some other legal nonsense.

So, kudos to them for actually being a country that follows the letter of the law, not simply a "well that's what we meant"-tough-on-crime policy like the US.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Shakrai]

I have a feeling that in a "law and order" country like the US, the law would never actually stop being enforced - law enforcement and judiciary would make up something about the "spirit" of the law or some other legal nonsense.

Got a citation for that or are you just looking to repeat stereotypes about the US? It's interesting that you could condemn the US criminal justice system when we still have our right to remain silent and right against self-incrimination. Tell me, how are those rights faring in the UK? Surely they don't hold it against you if you remain silent or compel you to be a witness against yourself?

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Anonymous Coward]

How can I cite a source? I was speculating, but I'm on solid ground here - this country has demonstrated many times that it does not care about the rule of law when it comes to being "tough on crime",

Re:at least they're fixing it

[commodore64_love]

I'm glad you've been marked "troll" because you're flat wrong.

Time-and-time again laws have been declared unconstitutional and the prisoners freed (see my previous post filled with quotes). Just watch Henry Fonda's excellent movie "Gideon" for an example which is about a real man who stood-up against tyranny, and won.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Shakrai]

this country has demonstrated many times that it does not care about the rule of law when it comes to being "tough on crime",

Which explains why so many violent criminals manage to dodge convictions here based on legal technicalities. It's rather apparent that you don't know anything about how the American legal system actually works and are only repeating stereotypes.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Anonymous Coward]

how many innocent people have been convicted, put on death row, and subsequently exonerated? Do you think system always catches its mistakes? Of course it doesn't. This country has executed innocent men before and will do so in the future. The fact is, Americans don't care. It's a "tough on crime" mentality that flies in the face of the liberty Americans claim to love.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[theaveng]

Which is precisely why I'm against the death sentence. It's too late to say, "Ooops he was convicted by an unconstitutional law. Free him," after he's already dead. The most-severe punishment should be a life sentence.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Which explains why so many violent criminals manage to dodge convictions here based on legal technicalities.

Oh yeah, those goddamn technicalities like the Bill of Rights. Why are we still worried about such archaic ideas anyway? We've got to get the criminals off the streets, damn it! The police have to beat confessions out of people to KEEP US SAFE! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?

In other words: fuck you, and fuck everyone else who is willing to give away the basic freedoms that generations fought and died for because of something you saw on a TV cop show. You want to live in a place without those pesky "technicalities?" There are lots of countries all over the world that fit that requirement. Give them a try sometime ... you may have a different view afterwards. If you survive the experience.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Shakrai]

Umm, WTF is up with all the outrage? I didn't suggest we give away any freedoms. All I said that was criminals get off on legal technicalities, in response to a claim that Americans care more about being "tough on crime" than we do about the rule of law. Clearly that isn't the case.

Those who know me know that I'm a civil libertarian. I was once falsely accused of committing a felony and had to fight to clear my name. Going through such an experience gives you an appreciation for our rights and the way our system works.

Perhaps you should check your outrage at the door next time and stop reading things into posts that aren't there?

Re:at least they're fixing it

[XanC]

Care to explain how the law against murdering multiple people will later be deemed unconstitutional?

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your kind of American is really annoying. Compared to the UK, your country is a goddamn rights paradise, and I wish you guys would appreciate it more.

Hell, this law isn't just about film classification. They still have the ability to deny any film classification and it is then illegal to distribute it - an actual, honest-to-god censorship board! Do you have that in the US? No, you have the First Amendment instead. Along with the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th (there was just recently a court ruling forcing the government to tell terrorist suspects what charges are against them. And the government is whining about obeying it.), 9th and 10th amendments. Probably the 3rd, 7th and 8th too, but I'm not well-acquainted with them. Rights that you guys have enshrined in the highest law of the land, we are lucky if the government decides to respect.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Anonymous Coward]

u mad?

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

What you said, specifically, was "so many violent criminals manage to dodge convictions here based on legal technicalities." That makes it sound like we have some plague of people who are actually guilty of violent crimes using legal trickery to avoid paying the penalties for their actions. While such cases do happen, the vast majority of the time when a "technicality" gets someone off, it's because it's not at all clear whether or not they actually committed the crime, and/or it is quite clear that the evidence against them is invalid. In short, it's the system working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Those "technicalities" are the only thing standing between us and a police state. Decades of cop show writers have used "off on a technicality" as a convenient plot device to explain why an obvious bad guy is still running around on the street -- which is why people think of them as "technicalities" instead of what they are, which is Constitutional protections of fundamental liberties. This is a serious threat to our freedom.

So that's why the outrage, pretty much.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[RegularFry]

The specific law might not be unconstitutional, but the process by which the victim was convicted certainly can be, as can selection and implementation of the punishment.

So they will find something else to charge you wit

[HomerJ]

They probably have 10 different laws on the books that overlap. They can just pick one of the others to charge you with.

It's like when you get a DUI, and they charge you for both "drunk driving" and "driving with a BAC of .08".

Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Lonewolf666]

My first idea in such a case would be "so the UK has violated the EU treaty, but the law is still valid".
That a law can actually be invalid because of such an administrative error is surprising and I wonder what other things like this are hidden in the legalese of the EU treaty.
I also wonder why a national government accepts this so easily. Do they, perhaps, hope to upset the balance of powers through the EU?

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Attila Dimedici]

I see stories like this and wonder about the people who argue that member countries of the EU are not the equivalent of U.S. states. This actually makes them less sovereign than U.S. states, since U.S. states don't need to "inform" the federal government when they pass a new law for it to be a law.

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Desler]

The point of such a clause is so that every member country in the EU is notified of any regulations you have passed that affect doing commerce in your country so that they know all know about. Seems to be a rather sane idea contrary to the usual knee-jerk anti-EU hysteria that will come about in this thread. Would you like to be sued because you sold something in the UK, for instance, and didn't know they had passed some new regulation that required you to jump through some legal loophole before you could sell your product?

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[RobVB]

With the exception that if they don't want to be in the EU, they can choose not to be. If England so desperately wants to go back to its time of Splendid Isolation, they can just say so. If they don't, the EU expects them to respect the treaties they helped set up.

P.S. I know this is hugely hypothetical.

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Shakrai]

U.S. states can not pass laws regulating interstate commerce.

I guess that depends on what your definition of 'regulate' and 'interstate commerce' is. New York State regulates insurance companies when they choose to do business here, even if they are located elsewhere. Is that not interstate commerce? What about regulating utility companies? How about California imposing their own standards on cars manufactured outside the state?

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Desler]

New York State regulates insurance companies when they choose to do business here, even if they are located elsewhere. Is that not interstate commerce?

No, it's not. That insurance company is doing business in New York and as such New York is well within it's power to regulate their actions within their state.

What about regulating utility companies?

What about it?

How about California imposing their own standards on cars manufactured outside the state?

They don't. They only impose standards that must be followed if you want to do business in their state. There is nothing stopping any car manufacturer from ignoring California's regulations when selling cars in other states.

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Dr. Hok]

I also wonder why a national government accepts this so easily.

Um, perhaps because it is a union. Where countries cooperate.

But actually, I am quite surprised that the British government does not simply ignore this little mistake. Britain has not exactly been the model EU member with all its exceptions and vetos. At times I thought they only joined the EU because it'd be easier to sabotage it from the inside.

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[VJ42]

At times I thought they only joined the EU because it'd be easier to sabotage it from the inside.

You're not far wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIXH3-A8zMI&feature=related
Yes Minister is like a documentary at times... ;p The reason we're doing this is because we always follow the rules, that way we can complain about them. It's the French who just ignore the rules that don't suit them, they're far more pro-integration then us Brits ever were.

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Byzantine]

The Civil Rights Act requires the Mississippi Legislature (and others states', I think, but I live in Mississippi) to not just notify the federal government when it redraws voting districts but to actually have the feds sign off on it.

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Hognoxious]

There is nothing stopping any car manufacturer from ignoring California's regulations when selling cars in other states.

Apart from the costs of having to maintain extra product lines. Economies of scale - look it up.

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Hognoxious]

If they don't, the EU expects them to respect the treaties they helped set up.

Why? The other countries sure don't.

Hurray?!

[sqrt(2)]

So when society DOESN'T collapse into anarchy, are they going to realize this law was idiotic and unnecessary and not pass it again?

Re:Hurray?!

[AndyboyH]

It's a shame there's not a Score: +1 Optimistic...

Re:Hurray?!

[Sockatume]

I imagine that the MPs won't be able to distinguish "idiotic and unnecessary" due to the high background levels of idiocy and superfluousness built into the Commons.

Re:Hurray?!

[Hoplite3]

The Roman Republic lasted some five hundred years without criminal law. From this, you could conclude that the modern notion of criminal justice is unnecessary, even in a large society. But a look inside of Rome might change your mind. Just because the system didn't collapse without this law doesn't mean the law is worthless. It also doesn't mean it's any good, either.

Just watch...

[damburger]

When the British Video Recordings Act 2009 is passed, it will be more restrictive than the original 1984 verson. I mean, why would any good centre-right, middle-class courting, focus-group driven pack of fear-mongers pass up a perfectly good opportunity for a moral panic? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?

Re:Just watch...

[RobVB]

This time next year:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs rated 14+ (for indecent displays of affection)

Re:Just watch...

[Hatta]

Technology has made it irrelevant anyway. Any kid can get any video he wants over the network.

Re:Just watch...

[pete-classic]

Isn't the Labour party in power? Aren't they the good guys? Won't they pass a sensible, populist law?

-Peter

Re:Just watch...

[RobVB]

Isn't the Labour party in power? Aren't they the good guys?

Good guys? When was the last time you checked up on politics?

Re:Just watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the BBFC decided *by itself* in 2002 to legalise pr0n videos/dvds, this may have an actual impact if they re-outlaw them.

Re:Just watch...

[value_added]

I mean, why would any good centre-right, middle-class courting, focus-group driven pack of fear-mongers pass up a perfectly good opportunity for a moral panic? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?

Agreed, but actions speak louder than words.

Instead of just thinking about the kids, what I do is help them with what they really need. Using my own youth as a point of reference, that typically means alcohol or cigarettes.

Re:Just watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude you owe me one sarcasm detector.

Re:Just watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is probably why we hear about this thing to begin with.

Only in dictionary does 'coincidence' come before 'fascism'.

Re:Just watch...

[an unsound mind]

Good guys? In politics?

Re:Just watch...

[pete-classic]

I'll admit that I don't follow UK politics very closely. But I thought that draconian censorship was more of a Tory thing.

-Peter

Re:Just watch...

[lisaparratt]

New Labour, putting the National back into Socialist!

Re:Just watch...

[john951]

It was: then New Labour decided the best route to winning elections was to be more like the Tories. I now present to you modern Britain.
(that and the fact that while censorship per se was a more Tory thing, populism is unmistakeably a Labour thing, and with the rise of the current FUD climate in the UK, anything that can be spun as Stopping The Bad Men That Hate Us And Are Paedophiles to the average Mail reader gets railroaded through the Commons)

Re:Just watch...

[digitig]

I'll admit that I don't follow UK politics very closely. But I thought that draconian censorship was more of a Tory thing.

No, it's a government thing.

Re:Just watch...

[jimicus]

Labour have been going completely mental in terms of putting new laws in place since they came to power.

Myself, I think they were out of power for so long that suddenly being in went to their heads and they got all giddy. Like a small child being taken to a sweetshop and told "You can have as much as you like".

Re:Just watch...

[pete-classic]

Of course, this was my original thesis, under all the irony.

-Peter

Re:Just watch...

[digitig]

Considering that the BBFC decided *by itself* in 2002 to legalise pr0n videos/dvds

Not really. Their guidelines address things like whether material is "unacceptable to broad public opinion", and as public opinion shifts then the interpretation of such clauses should shift with it. All that happened was that they recognised that the range of what was acceptable had widened, but not so wide as to include everything that had been rated R18 or banned completely.

Re:Just watch...

[camperdave]

Indecent displays of affection? How about the fact that a teenage girl is cohabitating with seven males, none of which is her husband, without the consent of her legal guardians?

Re:Just watch...

[idontgno]

And they're MIDGETS. OMG, that's like the worst kink EVAR.

Re:Just watch...

[FourthAge]

Yes, the 2009 Act will be worse. I completely agree with you about that.

But I'd love to know what you think "centre-right" means in the context of New Labour. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I still see a bunch of semi-Marxists who are obsessed with controlling everything. To me, the focus groups are just a way to learn how to present whatever it is they already decided to do in an "acceptable" and "media friendly" way. And "small minded Middle England" is still the despised scapegoat for every authoritarian law they come up with. "Sorry guys, we had to introduce detention without trial/ID cards/whatever. The Daily Mail demanded it."

Re:Just watch...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Speaking as a foreign observer, the Liberal Dems are the real liberals, Labour's so mealy mouth centerist it hurts, and the Tories are fucking useless.

The real Good Guys(tm) are obvious. the Official Monster Raving Loony party.

Re:Just watch...

[Joe Jay Bee]

The Lib Dems' platform is ridiculously sensible, but they get an insane amount of bad press (mainly for having the sheer balls not to succumb to the media line about immigration and the EU. Shame that they'll probably never get into power.

Re:Just watch...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Not sure how it works with the UK parties. But in the US the Democrats are usually the ones proposing and voting for speech restricting legislation and the Republicans voting against it (unless it's encapsulated with something else they want) - with a few in each party voting the other way, of course. But the press manages to keep people convinced it's the other way around.

Don't believe it? Check the Congressional Record on any of the high-profile censorship laws. And don't forget to "think of the chill'ren".

Re:Just watch...

[mdwh2]

Sad but true - I fear you are right. Whilst one might hope we've moved on from the video nasties and snuff film scares of the 1980s, recent laws like the "extreme porn law", and the fact that the media have already reacted entirely by scaremongering of "Now people can sell porn to young children", it wouldn't surprise me if any changes just make the law more draconian, as you say.

Place your bets:

* Classification to cover Internet videos too?

* Law to criminalise possession of unclassified works, to cover the "loophole" that people can download from abroad?

Re:Just watch...

[Hognoxious]

That's the only sensible post in this whole thread.

Great!

[Colourspace]

Now I'll finally be able to buy that copy of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre I was too young to buy when I was 17 in 1991!

Re:Great!

[Shakrai]

I was thinking of another movie with a Texan theme ;)

Re:Great!

[xaxa]

I saw it when I was about 14, on broadcast TV. I set the VCR timer to record it, it was on at ~midnight.

These laws are pretty irrelevant to kids these days.

(At least you've correctly noted this is the UK, so the "bad stuff" is violence rather than sex.)

Retroactive courts?

[mwvdlee]

Does this mean that anybody found guilty and punished for breaking this law in the past 25 years will now be paid back by the government?

No, Police will probably pretend law is valid

[rolfwind]

during those 3 months until Parliament can scramble together a Save the Children act.

I heard that the FBI kept on relying on parts of the (un)Patriot(ic) Act long after the Supreme Court overturned those same parts of it. Business as usual, carry on.

Re:No, Police will probably pretend law is valid

[TheLostSamurai]

I heard that the FBI kept on relying on parts of the (un)Patriot(ic) Act long after the Supreme Court overturned those same parts of it. Business as usual, carry on.

I heard that you actually eat babies, but then again, neither one of us has a citation.

Since when were there DVDs in 1984?

[117]

From TFA:

Don Foster said: "The Conservatives' incompetence when they were in government has made laws designed to ...protect children from harmful DVDs unenforceable"

I don't think a law passed in 1984 was designed for DVDs, considering they were still ten years from making an appearance at that time.

Sorry, but the new 2009 version of this law . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . will only let you buy "naughty" stuff if you are over the age of 40.

Hey England!

[Stenchwarrior]

1984 called. They want their video age-ratings back...

Re:Hey England!

[Ma8thew]

Britain. Hey Britain. It's right there in the title of the story.

Re:Hey England!

[_Shad0w_]

United Kingdom, actually. Britain is not a legal entity and really just means "that bunch of islands", including ones - and parts of ones - which aren't a part of the UK (The Isle of Man and the ROI, for example).

Great Britain is another matter entirely.

Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[Hognoxious]

Since it refers to sales which take place wholly within the UK it has zero cross border implications. There are no important international implications - it's not like the straightness of cucumbers or whether carrots are a fruit which obviously everyone in the world needs to know.

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sire, there are no Belgians."

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[Dr. Hok]

There are no important international implications

That's probably true for this particular law, but there may be cases where it isn't, and there may even be cases where the international implications are not easy to predict. So IMHO it is a good thing to publicise laws as a general rule. Do you think it is necessary to keep laws secret?

And, it's the rule. A law is not passed if the rules are not followed. Evidence is not admitted if it was obtained illegally. Etc. It may hurt sometimes, and even seem stupid, but rules should be followed. Especially by governments.

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[mirkob]

except everyone in europe should be able to sell his video in england,

but if he doesn't know of a standard required there and it sell his product and then will be brought to tribunal for not following the law, you see were the problem is....

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[ConfusedVorlon]

you are missing the point of cross-border trade.

this is important if you are a belgian dvd shop that wants to sell over the internet to the UK.

Fair enough that if the UK passes some law restricting who/how a belgian store can sell dvds - then they should at least add it to a register of 'things you might want to look out for'

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[jonbryce]

It is important if companies in other EU countries want to sell DVDs to British people. They have to get the BBFC to review the DVDs and put the appropriate logo on them.

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[tepples]

Since it refers to sales which take place wholly within the UK it has zero cross border implications.

Since when does it not refer to importation?

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[Hognoxious]

this is important if you are a belgian dvd shop that wants to sell over the internet to the UK.

Bullshit. They just have to ask the customer how old he is, and the customer lies.

There are much bigger obstacles to cross border trade that this - namely the customs authorities. Try buying computer parts from a French website if you live in Belgium; you can't. Belgium isn't big enough to support its own MO market, so you have to go bricks and mortar and pay roughly double.

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? There are no customs formalities between EU countries. And that's not just the letter of the law, it's reality. What you ran into must be restrictions imposed by the website owner who's lazy enough not to bother with foreign clients. The certainly are lots of stores that do bother to trade with other EU countries - in the end the legal requirements are minimal.

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[Hognoxious]

I got some books shipped to Belgium from Germany and got charged VAT + fees that came to about a third of their base value. There's no appeal. All you can do is refuse the shipment. If you're lucky you'll get the base cost of the goods back - after shipping charges both ways.

So don't call me a liar in future, asshole.

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[Hognoxious]

this is important if you are a belgian dvd shop that wants to sell over the internet to the UK.

Yes, it must be the millions of cases like that clogging up legal systems everywhere (not to mention herds of extraditees making hellish congestion in the channel tunnel) that caused it to be spotted so quickly.

Re:Tell the Belgians to fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely there is a reasonable explanation for the charges, but considering that 1) the EU is a full customs union with a single internal market (i.e. no customs) for 99 % of goods including to my knowledge 100% of books, 2) systematic customs controls on internal borders have been abolished in 1992, 3) the VAT system is set up at the EU level and you can't expect to get out of VAT simply due to buying in another EU country, there must be some special circumstances at work in your case. Was the Belgian seller importing the books from outside the EU?

Sillyness

[Demonantis]

Giving legal advice is rather dangerous. She may have just entered herself into a client/lawyer relationship with anyone that was in the room and maybe even reads the article. IANAL so I have no idea what it implies, but it is on every single lawyer site that I read that a relationship has not been created.

RAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

[fireylord]

mod this +1 funny!

More freedom - no copyright now?!

[chrb]

I added this as a comment to the original submission but it didn't get picked up.

According to The Telegraph this also means that there is now no copyright on DVDs. I'm not sure of the reasoning for this since copyright is supposed to be enforced by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but that's the legal system for you.

So, apparently the UK is now (unwittingly) running the first national experiment in the abolition of copyright and age controls on DVDs. Should be interesting!

Re:More freedom - no copyright now?!

[91degrees]

There's a reasonable chance the telegraph got it wrong. Slashdot readers make some pretty serious mistakes bout copyright and they're typically pretty interested in the subject. If this is written by a slightly bored lazy journalist then it's not to be relied on.

Re:More freedom - no copyright now?!

[WoRLoKKeD]

To be honest, the Telegraph seems more likely to get something wrong when they put research into it. Just an observation.

Re:More freedom - no copyright now?!

[chrb]

I would agree but I've seen it reported elsewhere too, and the following suggests otherwise:

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat culture, media and sport spokesman, said: "The Conservative's incompetence when they were in Government has made laws designed to prevent video piracy and protect children from harmful DVDs unenforceable and thrown film censorship into chaos."

It may be that everyone is just confusing the issue. I guess we'll have to wait and see...

Re:More freedom - no copyright now?!

[mdwh2]

The Guardian have made this claim too - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/25/video-piracy-damages-1984-act - but I'm still sceptical (especially as the media often just copy stories from each other).

One possibility is that the VRA was used against video pirates, on the basis that video pirates may typically have been selling unclassified films (e.g., imports, uncut versions). In the same way that the "extreme" porn law now apparently is. But it`s nonsense for the media to present it in this way, since piracy is clearly covered by other laws. And if a video pirate can overturn a conviction, IMO it serves the Government right for using the wrong law for the job.

Scaremongering about children watching porn and now video pirates seems like a blatant biased attempt to push the assumption that this law is necessary - something I strongly disagree with, when it comes to the aspects of adult censorship.

Wrong Time

[Rehnberg]

And all of this two weeks after I leave the UK? Great...

A shopping list.

[Jeremy Erwin]

Wikipedia has a List of Video Nasties. If you live in Britain, but have never seen La Maldicion de la Bestai or La Bestia in Calore, you may have a window of opportunity.

Tom Lehre's Smut Lyrics

[realsilly]

I think Tom Lehre said it best in his song called Smut.

I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called...

Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!

15 was a crappy age

[Kugrian]

I remember how excited it was when I was 15 - I could finally rent out videos from the local Blockbuster that were rated 15! So off I went with my handful of pound coins, and picked out two of the three I could find.

They didn't register enough for me to remember the titles. All I know is, they sucked. Again and again I went back, trying to find a 15 rated film that was good.

Nothing. They all sucked. I was so disappointed.

Apologies for being mostly offtopic. I just wanted to share this decade old frustration.

No change in Sovereignty

[Roger W Moore]

Surely such a surrender of sovereignty was exactly the sort of thing Thatcher opposed?

Exactly how does this surrender any sovereignty? As I understand it there is no restriction on what law they pass only that, once the government have passed a law, they just need to tell the EU what they did. Only if the EU had to agree to it would become an issue of sovereignty. The fact that the government forgot to report is their own fault. Perhaps they were all busy attending to more important matters like cleaning their moats and repairing their floating duck houses?

Re:the comments on these stories always make me la

[4D6963]

What? Hysteria? In my Slashdot? Okay I think I'm going to actually get modded down for this, but seriously, while reactions on Slashdot are often hysteric (i.e. "OMG CCTVs/Internet filtering/copyright laws, futuristic dystopia here we come!"), Slashdot has a dominantly American audience (56.5% according to my stats, +9.1% if you count Canada in), and it's just American hysteria.

Just look at how people react to news in the USA, the healthcare reform is the latest and best example of American hysteria at work (but you have lots of examples since the 20th century). A fairly popular administration wants to fix a messed up healthcare system by adding options, and people go "OMG Nazi fascism they want to kill babies and grandmothers!!!". Sure, FOX News and what's left of the Republican party are helping, but the fact that what they do actually works should reveal something about the American society. Would it work in France, Germany or the Netherlands? Doubt it.

People often talk about how Americans as a whole, as a herd, are stupid. They're not directly stupid, they're just very susceptible to hysteria. I don't know where it's coming from but it's something deeply embedded in the American culture. It certainly had its fair share of participation in bringing about the prohibition, McCarthyism (what witchhunt isn't rooted in hysteria?), all sorts of reactions and attitudes during the Cold War, but more recently, the aftermath of the 9/11 (again a prime example of hysteria, and undoubtedly the main reason for the Iraqi invasion to go domestically mostly unchallenged at the time. Same thing for the boycott of France, that went something like "OMG France if you're not with us you're against us!!!"), and yes, even the global warming and creationism debate (which are practically inexistent in civilised nations that are not satellites of the USA). I cannot stress enough how big a part hysteria plays in America, this is not a new phenomenon at all, and if you're American you may not realise this but this is actually very characteristic, believe it or not but some other societies are more cool headed. Here's the good news though, you're not stupid, just hysteric, to the point of getting into stupid stuff, until a few years after the cause that triggered the hysteria is gone you realise it was stupid.

So yeah, Slashdot, its hysteric reactions and projections of doom and dystopia just reflects that.

Poor Britain, forced to *notify*

[Nicolas MONNET]

Oh dear, they are *forced*, obliged, compelled, strong-armed into having to notify the EC! What a loss of sovereignty! Whereas before that they could pass laws, and that was the end of it; now they have to pass laws *and* notify the EC, and that's the end of it. That's outrage-fucking-ous!

Re:Poor Britain, forced to *notify*

[andy_t_roo]

i know, "forced" by their own voluntarily passed law, such a horrible position to be in ...., its not like laws can never be removed or modified (or even found to be void in the first place)

Sales in a common market

[Nicolas MONNET]

... are every member's business. And if you don't like it, just get the fuck out.

it's not like the straightness of cucumbers or whether carrots are a fruit which obviously everyone in the world needs to know.

Yet you felt it important that the whole world knew that you swallowed the Daily Fail bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

Oh that awesome British independence

[Nicolas MONNET]

I thought that "independence" was a French word, but clearly it must have drifted quite a lot in meaning since king William. From New Labour to the Tories and the fucktards at UKIP, it seemed quite compatible with bending over backward to please GWB and begging for more. Now when Brussels asks you to follow simple rules you agreed to and 24 other countries have no problem adhering to, that's an outrage.
What a joke.

Re:So they will find something else to charge you

[uvajed_ekil]

It's like when you get a DUI, and they charge you for both "drunk driving" and "driving with a BAC of .08".

I'm not sure where you are, but around here, it is illegal to drive with a BAC of greater than or equal to .08%. We commonly call this "drunk driving," but there are not two separate legal charges, and the legal system does not use the term "drunk driving." If you were "driving drunk" and did something else, say swerving across the center line, that resulted in a cop stopping you, you could be charged with something else because you weren't controlling your vehicle properly, or if you hit something or were speeding. But the example you mention is simply a misunderstanding on your part.

Re:the comments on these stories always make me la

[thirty-seven]

Slashdot has a dominantly American audience (56.5% according to my stats, +9.1% if you count Canada in)

As a Canadian, I'm asking you to please not lump us in with the Excited States of America.

Re:So they will find something else to charge you

[Anonymous Coward]

I know of no state that does what you describe regarding DUI. IAAL, IANYL, TINLA.

Re:Sorry, but the new 2009 version of this law . .

[Anonymous Coward]

damn now I'm going to need a fake ID to rent Ultra-porn

Re:So they will find something else to charge you

[HomerJ]

In the United States it varies state to state. But I'm in Pennsylvania, and that's how it is here. You get a DUI, they will charge you with both. The state considers them separate offenses.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

[sckeener]

wish I could mod you up. I wish that was a reality. For so many crimes, being convicted is a life sentence whether in the prison or out. I think it would be better for society and the criminal if there was a place we could banish them.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:the comments on these stories always make me la

[4D6963]

Haha alright, I honestly don't have much of a clue about whether or not Canada is affected, but now that I think about it there's absolutely no reason to think it is, quite on the contrary. My apologies!

LUSIK

[Anonymous Coward]

Britain doesn't even have a constitution.
http://artmazok.com/

Re:LUSIK

[6031769]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

Of course Britain doesn't have a constitution - it isn't a country. Fortunately the United Kingdom (which is a country) very much does have a constitution. If it did not, there'd be anarchy after all and we would have bigger fish to fry than the EU.

Re:LUSIK

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course Britain doesn't have a constitution - it isn't a country..."

Countries aren't the only political units that can have a constitution.

masina

[Anonymous Coward]

mazok

Great!

[G-Man]

Gordon Brown can finally play those Region 1 DVDs he got from Obama! Oh, happy day.

What about offences committed under this 'law'

[epo001]

This'll probably never see the light of day but it opens up a rats nest. I presume the existing law is void and so they will enact a replacement law. But what about people convicted to date?

Will they now be pardoned?, can the 'guilty' parties sue for compensation?

Re:What about offences committed under this 'law'

[_Shad0w_]

The government has been saying they can't, I'm not entirely sure on what legal basis they're asserting that though.

Logically if a law is invalid because something wasn't done when it was passed, that will always have been the case. It's possible there's a clause which makes only future cases, after the omission was discovered, invalid. It seems unlikely though.

an addendum to your sig

[circletimessquare]

Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby. ...

Atheism is a religion to the same extent you have a burning need to comment on other people's stamp collecting.

frog cunt

[Hognoxious]

I can take some solace from the fact that nobody in my ancestry is the offspring of a malodorous wermacht feldwebel and a syphilitic absinthe-addicted whore.

Un vrai casseur au clavier.

[Hognoxious]

And if you don't like it, just get the fuck out.

LOL. I think you should phrase that as "would you kinly leave now pretty please sirs?". Because let's face it, you idle fucking snail munchers have never thrown anyone out of anywhere. 1415, 1815, 1871, 1914, 1939 ... need I go on?

Re:Un vrai casseur au clavier.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those fucking French kicked King John's ass back in the 13th century.

Guess what, we like brussels better than Sarkozy's

[Nicolas MONNET]

Guess what, we like brussels better than Sarkozy's cadre of right wing ass lickers. The EU is blocking the 3 strike BS, for one.
But I guess you're pleased with the NuLabour / Tories policies? CCTV for all and all that 1984 crap? Guess what, without the EU, you'd be 10x worse of in that respect.

not so fast - extreme pr0n law

[mdwh2]

It's still OK to posses, or view privately, the film

True, though be careful it doesn't come under the ill-defined spanking new "extreme pr0n" law, which does cover private possession. I've no idea what's in Grotesque, though "sexual violence" (even if acted with consenting adults) is exactly the sort of thing this new law covers.

"Britain's choice"

[roesti]

Not really, because the nation in question - Britain, has signed up to have that as part of the deal.

If Britain hadn't signed up to this and Europe was still enforcing this you'd have a point, but as it's Britain's choice to only allow laws to be legitimate if reported to Europe then it's still a sovereign nation.

Is this the same sort of choice that Britain had to sign the Treaty of Lisbon? If it weren't for 109,965 Irish voters standing up for that choice, the meaning of your post would be a relic to history by now.

Re:"Britain's choice"

[Xest]

Britain as a sovereign nation did have a choice on the Lisbon treaty. The problem is that it was the government that made the decision for the country when it should've been the people. It was not signed against the will of the country, but the will of the people. This is a flaw with the government, not with Britain losing it's sovereignity to Europe to be able to make decisions like this in the first place. A new government could still choose to pull us out if they really felt it would be worth it also.

Baaaah baaaah baaaaaah

[Hognoxious]

Have you read the Lisbon treaty? Thought not, and I don't blame you - it's like a phone book. But you're in good company, I doubt most MEPs have read it either. But don't worry, trust the politicians - they'll tell you all about it and what your opinions should be.

Can someone explain why it needs so much verbiage? Those guys in Philly back in 1776 managed to make their point in a few pages. Heck, the revolutionary French managed it in three words.